Raven

quote: Israel became a nation when they declared themselves to be and beat off the Arabic nations that wished to destroy them, once Israel had proved itself militariy capable of keeping the territory it had, it then became a nation, whether the UN recognized it or not. Just as the US became a nation when we the people declared it as such. We were not recognized by many nations, but that did not make it a fact that we did not exist as a nation. The UN has NO POWER that we as nations do not give it, and that is ONE power that it has NEVER had and NEVER will have. Exactly right, the UN may be able to formally recognize a nation, but that is only RECOGNITION of what is already there.

Jaguar, forcing the military to accept anyone who applied would be foolish, there would still have to be entry requirements. It wouldnÔÇÖt do to have criminals in the military, never mind the government. I also agree totally about welfare and such. Not so much as it presents a conflict of interests (the government exists to serve the people after all) but that persons who canÔÇÖt manage there own life well enough to support themselves should not have any part, however ephemeral, in government decisions. Epsilon 5, I wouldnÔÇÖt inlist either, voting is not all that important to me and I'm not in the least bit patriotic (but then, like I said before, people like me probably shouldnÔÇÖt be running the government anyway). You have to wonder, though, whether a person who canÔÇÖt stand the sting from an injection (which, by the way, is something that doesnÔÇÖt take much getting used to) could support a decision that, while good for the country as a whole, was harmful to that individual. I would like to point out that in my envisioning of this system the only difference between someone who has been in the military (and thus is a citizen) and someone who hasnÔÇÖt is voting privileges and the ability to hold public office. Neither should be a punishment for persons who donÔÇÖt want to be in the military as this would be grossly unjust.

quote:Originally posted by Paddy Gregory: Jesus, he's just a geek for God's sake. It's not as if he killed or raped anyone.True, but his virus sure raped a lot of computers.

Menchise, I agree with what you said about cultural heritage and not forcing everyone to conform, the only thing I was ranting on was language. Cultural hegemony (at least in a country this size) is bad, a common language that everyone speaks and reads is good. About your source on the Jenin ÔÇ£massacreÔÇØ I canÔÇÖt agree. The fact that, to the best of my knowledge, the Palestinians have not acknowledged the higher bodycount that your Justin Huggler reported suggest that its incorrect. That he is independent is no guarantee of the accuracy of his reporting, and the generally sensationalism of the excerpt you posted doesnÔÇÖt do anything to validate his writing, nor does the fact that it is terribly written.

It would have to be military service Tac, the whole point is that a person would have to invest a part of there lives in protecting the country if they want to have any say in how it is run. As far as what you said about it not affecting women in any way, that is an extremely optimistic view. While I'm not saying that women are incapable of serving in the military, I do believe that a vast majority wouldnÔÇÖt inlist solely to be able to vote. I know I wouldnÔÇÖt, I donÔÇÖt value voting that much (but then, if people like me didnÔÇÖt have a say in the government it would probably be for the best).

As soon as you learn how to post factual problems, without phrases like I can't remember, be sure to post again or risk the post being deleted. Have a nice day [ 05-04-2002, 13:09: Message edited by: Supreme Cmdr ]

ROTFLMAO

I too thought of having citizenship as a reward for military service when I first read LotharrÔÇÖs post, and Like $iLk I got the idea from starship troopers. In many ways itÔÇÖs a very good idea, and it would certainly have an interesting effect on politics, but there is (at least) one rather large problem. Right now most of the armed forces are male, only men have to register for the draft (a type of sexism I like, might I add), and so if we were to implement this retroactively and withdraw citizenship from all persons who havenÔÇÖt served in the military then we might as well revoke womenÔÇÖs suffrage at the same time. In the long term this would not be so pronounced, but it would represent a major step backward in equality of the sexes. I feel little doubt in saying that even with citizenship as the reward for military serves less women then men would join, and so either women would be exempt from this requirement and granted automatic citizenship (something I wouldnÔÇÖt mind, but a lot of guyÔÇÖs would) or else there would be less female voters which sets the scene for dismantling of womenÔÇÖs rights. On the other side, it would get rid of a lot of the pacifist element (I do NOT have a strong sense of compassion for others suffering and am mildly disgusted by people who do, particularly other women) and generally give our government a lot more backbone and unity. The fact that lazy ass bums and other social leaches would loose the right to vote is a good thing. If someone has an idea how to solve the problem I pointed out I would be all for it, but as it is I would have to say that such a system would lead to a dangerous imbalance of power.

quote: That does not make sense! Melting the USA down to a single language and culture is invariably destructive to the whole concept of culture. It encourages racial division and marginalization, not to mention sowing the seeds of xenophobia, which does nothing to contribute to any positive future. I speak from experience here. It is this singular mindset that is currently turning Australia into the most racist country in the Western world. We already put Arab and Asian refugees in concentration camps! Trust me: cultural hegemony does not work. For the most part you are correct, attempting to homogenize American culture would be at best impossible and at worst a catastrophe. Having a single language, however, is a matter of efficiency. Never mind that people who canÔÇÖt speak English have a huge disadvantage trying to get a decent job, never mind that the inability to speak English makes a person much easier to take advantage of, and never mind that most people dismiss persons who canÔÇÖt speak English as ignorant if not stupid. Forget about all of these reasons why requiring people to learn English is for there own good, itÔÇÖs a matter of simply expediency to the rest of us. Putting up Spanish road signs places the majority of the population at a disadvantage, dealing with someone who speaks little or no English is a bloody pain, and then hearing people wine about class barriers and how Spanish speaking immigrants are disadvantaged and such not is just plain nauseating. I'm not saying there is anything wrong with people speaking other languages, or even speaking such languages primarily, that would be ridiculous. I'm simply saying that catering to people who donÔÇÖt speak English is not only aggravating for the rest of us but it places those disadvantaged individuals in the worst possible position. It should be required that immigrants can speak English, but as this isnÔÇÖt going to happen then at the very least minimal attempts should be made to educate them. The last thing we need to do is to import useless wretches who will be nothing but a strain on welfare because they canÔÇÖt even speak our language to get a decent job. Bah! And yes, I know this is off topic, but thatÔÇÖs just too bad.

It would have to have been, those are some UGLY poodles [ 05-03-2002, 02:58: Message edited by: Dragon Lady ]

Quintuple w00t!

It would be hard not to see it, but some people seem to manage regardless.

Spiders are cool, I used to have one who lived by the door of my bedroom and I would catch bugs that got in the house and feed them to it. Really fun, but the poor spider got massively fat.

That is just damn cool!

quote: Surely Isreal cannot believe that a UN commision would be biased, and yet strong resitance to any such action is takeing place at every level of the government. Of course the UN can be biased, theyÔÇÖre human beings and come equipped with all the flaws of human beings, to thing otherwise would be an act of madness. quote: Reading everyone's responses, has a single person modified or moderated their view in the slightest bit? Or is everyone essentially airing their views and disregarding good points made by the opposition, and instead only responding to the weakest point? It would be nice if seeing a little truth would actually change someones mind, but most people are too proud for that, and it is sad. ThatÔÇÖs not entirely true, I really had little or no opinion in this whole issue before visiting this thread and so my point of view was molded by the arguments that I heard. The fact that IÔÇÖm not very swayed by others arguments has more to do with my unusual opinions on morality then anything else.

quote: However, in the Occupied Territories, the issue becomes more complicated since the presence of the Israeli military is illegal. A hypothetical analogy would be the US Army occupying Mexico. In that kind of situation, the Palestinians are within their rights to fight the Israeli troops. That you say that is quite interesting, but I would like to point out that all concepts of law are totally artificial. Perhaps I should make an analogy of the Native Americans. If a group of Native Americans decided that they wanted the US to surrender them Washington, Oregon, and California and then starts terrorist activities when the government (predictably might I add) refuses. This is not a perfect analogy, I admit, but it does get the point across. If conquest is illegal (and you will have a hard time finding anyone in power to agree with you) then just about EVERY COUNTRY has illegal borders. Furthermore, your example about the US occupying Mexico is a little deceptive. The Israeli military isnÔÇÖt occupying any territories, they have conquered them. If the US was to invade and conquer Mexico for whatever reason then there would no longer be a Mexico, it would simply be a territory in the US.

quote: Not a very surprising ruling from a relative of Rush Limbaugh. Verry true

Exactly

It seams to me that the Palestinians have yet to reach that point, and if there media continues to preach about the need to kill Jews then I doubt that they will ever get there. Anyway, the use of suicide bombers suggests a general lack of value for human life as well as general paucity of common sense.

Who knows, if they boast loud and long enough someone might even believe them.

quote: No come on, sure right they're going to ban practically all games? Sure. The only economic reasons NOT to do it are too important alone. For the most part youÔÇÖre correct, but the ultra-conservative yahoos who would try to ban games wouldnÔÇÖt care about economic reasons.

Very nice example Dredd, but there is a bit of a problem. Unlike the hypothetical militia groups you are proposing, the Palestinians donÔÇÖt hate the government (well, they probably do, but thatÔÇÖs beside the point) they hate the people. Furthermore, theyÔÇÖre religious zealots (or at least a good portion of them are) and they are trained from birth to hate and kill Jews. The only way to stop the problem would be to kill every last Palestinian (quite a task to say the least) or to have such extreme control over them as to dictate there education, the type of media they receive, and what they are allowed to talk about in there homes. The only kind of government that has ever had that kind of control over a decent sized group of people is a totalitarian one.

Sounds cool, if it turns out like it sounds.

Truly dreadful, we can only hope it gets overturned soon.

The fact that there is a perfectly legitimate reason for pop-ups is totally beside the point. Like banners, they are the tools of malicious, small-minded individuals who arenÔÇÖt willing to pay through the nose to provide me with a free service.